Case Law Details
Prism Cement-Unit II Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
A bare reading of the expression “Business” u/S.2(d) of M.P. VAT Act, 2002 reveals that tax is leviable inter alia on the event of manufacturer whether or not such event is carried on with motive to make gain or profit and whether or not any gain or profit accrues from such manufacturer.
Words and expression employed in Sec.2(d) of VAT Act are clear that tax is leviable on the activity of manufacturer notwithstanding such activity entailing profit or not. Thus, it is obvious that in the present case, the authorities have factually found that manufacturer had started business on 05.08.2010. Whether appellant chooses to call this process as a trial manufacturer will not make any difference. Importantly, the authorities have also factually found that not only manufacturing but sale of cement had also started from 05.08.2010 which is luminous by reading of the order of Appellate Board especially para 5(4).
The so called trial production of cement and clinker from 05.08.2010 till 01.11.2010 when the appellant claims to have started commercial production has been claimed to be not coming within the definition of “Business” as defined in Sec.2(d) of VAT Act.
In view of above discussion, this Court has no manner of doubt that factual findings rendered by the Appellate Board are in accordance with law and none of the proposed substantial questions of law are made out herein.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
